Sunday 18 October 2009 15.12 EDT
First published on Sunday 18 October 2009 15.12 EDT

MPs will this week go ahead with a debate about the impact of "super-injunctions" on parliamentary proceedings after lawyers for Trafigura, the oil trading company at the centre of allegations of toxic waste dumping in Ivory Coast, dropped legal proceedings against the Guardian.

Carter-Ruck, the libel lawyer acting for Trafigura, last week tried to prevent the debate from going ahead by arguing that the very case that prompted it, concerning an injunction to prevent coverage of a confidential draft report commissioned by its client into industrial pollution, was sub judice.

The draft report stated that the waste dumped by Trafigura was potentially highly toxic and capable of severe effects on human health.

This weekend, John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, confirmed that the debate will take place on Wednesday in Westminster Hall, raising hopes among campaigners for freedom of speech that MPs will use it as a platform to criticise the practice of courts issuing super-injunctions against the press.

Carter-Ruck agreed to release the Guardian from the injunction on Friday night after the existence of the Minton report into the disaster, commissioned by Trafigura, was revealed in parliament.

Making his decision to go ahead with the debate this weekend, Bercow cited the need to robustly defend the freedom of speech in parliament.

"Debate in the house in such situations is governed by the sub judice rules which leaves the chair [the Speaker] with discretion to allow reference to cases within limits determined by the chair," he said. "I have exercised that discretion and a debate will take place on 21 October at 2.30pm on the 'effects of English libel law on the reporting of parliamentary proceedings'."

Writing to the Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, who had urged him to ignore Carter-Ruck's call for a ban, Bercow said that together with the leader of the house, Harriet Harman, and the justice secretary, Jack Straw, he will also consider the ramifications of the Trafigura case in respect of parliamentary proceedings.

"In the meantime, you can be assured that I will continue, as my predecessors have done, to vigorously protect the freedom of speech in the house, which is essential to its proceedings and the most important of its privileges," he said.

Carter-Ruck's attempt to prevent a debate about the impact of super-injunctions on parliamentary proceedings was the firm's second attempt to restrict normal parliamentary procedures.

Earlier in the week, an injunction had been used to gag the Guardian from reporting an MP's questions to Straw about the injunction itself, sparking public outrage that a private company was attempting to block media coverage of parliament.

The same injunction also banned disclosure of the injunction's existence, until it was revealed last week under parliamentary privilege. The Guardian had been prevented from publishing a parliamentary question from MP Paul Farrelly about the effectiveness of legislation to protect the freedom of the press in the wake of a high court injunction obtained by Trafigura and Carter-Ruck "on the publication of the Minton report".

On Thursday, a Carter-Ruck partner, Adam Tudor, sent a letter to Bercow and circulated it to every MP and peer, saying he believed a parliamentary debate should not go ahead because the case concerning the existing injunction was "sub judice". A day later the injunction was lifted.

"Carter-Ruck have got a real nerve," said Farrelly. "Firstly they tried and failed to suppress news that they had obtained a gagging order against the Guardian. Then they tried to ask the Speaker to gag parliament itself. This affair has shown us that privileges protecting press freedom are sometimes only as strong as their assertion. The Speaker and parliament must stand up to people like Carter-Ruck who aggressively try to encroach on these freedoms."

Law firm Carter-Ruck's super-injunction to attempt to stop the reporting of a question on the Trafigura affair in Parliament has galvanised MPs and other bodies to take up the fight for freedom of expression